Will it come down to us v.s. them?

[David Floyd]

You know, crusader doesn't soley refer to the Knights of Western Europe who invaded the ME in the 11th to 13th Centuries.

No, but that's who it sounded like you meant. If I made a mistake, forgive me. I will certainly agree that in some cases crusaders crusade for a cause out of altruism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Hmmm. So you argue that some of these states, absent imperialism, would be rich and strong nations today?

Rich and strong? No. Stable and fairly middle class, depends on the country. Pre-Gulf War Iraq was a fairly wealthy country, a sizable middle class, women's rights, high levels of education, a small manufacturing base, etc. This was based on oil wealth, and not every country could do it. However, it shares the same culture as Jordan, Syria, and the Gulf States, and yet it's people were far better off than any of their neighbors.

Personally, given the size of those countries and their relative lack of natural resources (other than, in some cases, oil and natural gas), I don't really agree.

Tunisia will probably always be poor, yes, and Yemen. But Lebanon was a relatively wealthy country because it was a banking center. The government set up by the French, however, was discrimintory against Muslims, and so Civil War broke out and ruined the country. Had there been a more democratic sharing of power, rather than one which perpetuated French interests, then quite possibly Lebanon wouldn't be the basket case it is today.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
If I made a mistake, forgive me. I will certainly agree that in some cases crusaders crusade for a cause out of altruism.

You're forgiven.

BTW, just because someone is on a crusade doesn't mean they are noble or good. The Nazis thought they were crudasers saving the world from the Jewish and Bolshevik menace.

[Gatekeeper]

People are *not* born evil, but decisions they make in life can turn them evil. Osama bin Laden is but one example of this.

Bin Laden was born into wealth. He professes to care for the poor, downtrodden masses in the Middle East, yet what has he done with his wealth? He's used it to whip up death and mayhem, all in the name of Islam.

If bin Laden had really cared for those he claims to care for, he could have easily chosen a different route to use his influence. He could have build hospitals, libraries or put money into barren earth and make it green. The bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia isn't w/o influence — he could've tried to institute reform in the government, perhaps giving the common people more of a voice in the kingdom's affairs. Hell, maybe he could've started a newspaper that was genuinely free of the editorial hallmarks that state-run papers are well-known for.

All of that, however, isn't necessarily easy to see to fruition. Yet it's also the path most likely to lead to success, not only for those who build and nurture such institutions and actions, but also for those who benefit from the mere existence of such institutions.

What I'm saying is this: Osama bin Laden had a choice. He made it, and everything else is nothing more than a phantom "what-if" island amid the ocean of blood and carnage that is reality.

Bin Laden's choices have turned him evil, IMHO.

Gatekeeper

[Gangerolf]

It might, if they were suffering from a shortage of labor, which they aren't. There are many reasons for the poverty of the ME, religion and culture aren't among them. .

Discrimination of women causes a antidemocratic mentality which causes the absense of democracy. With democracy maybe the wealth would be distributed to more people.

Imperialism and the political and economic structures that were set up by imperialism have far more to do with the poverty in their world

But why is it that the West could go imperialist in the ME and not vice versa? It wouldn't surprise me if the reason has got something to do with culture/religion.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
Discrimination of women is linked to the absense of democracy which again is linked to poverty. With democracy maybe the wealth would be distributed to more people.

Women have the vote in Pakistan, Iran, and India, and they are severely discriminated against in those countries (despite the fact that two of them elected female presidents). Women are also discriminated against in the US, and until very recently, severely so (up until the mid '80s). Yet we were the wealthiest nation in the world before then and women had had the right to vote nationwide for at least 60 years.

Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea are all either dictatorships or extremely authoritarian countries with a semblence of democracy. They are all highly developed and considered wealthy, despite recent setbacks.

So discrimination against women and the lack of democracy don't seem to be the main problems. Hell, the US is one of the more representitive countries in the world, and it also has one of the largest disparities between classes.

But why is it that the West could go imperialist in the ME and not vice versa? It wouldn't surprise me if the reason has got something to do with culture/religion.

Well, they did, but that was centuries ago. The ME had more decentralized states, which is sorta counter-productive to expansion. ME wealth was also largely based on being the middle man, so they had no reason to introduce new technologies, where as the Europeans did. Once the EUropeans could cut out the ME as far as trade went, it was really just a matter of time before the ME was overshadowed by European power.

Anyway, the ME had something Europe needed, which is a big incentive to conquest, as opposed to just liking to see your flag flying over the Balkans.

[Arrian]

It was my understanding that OBL's #1 reason for declaring war on the United States (1993) was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia - the home of Islam's holy sites. To make that a bit broader: Yankee go home.

The other reasoning: poverty, lack of democracy, support for Israel, hatred of our values, whatever... is secondary. Hell, OBL only tacked on the Pal/Israeli squabble post-9/11, when he realized it had broad appeal.

Speaking of broad appeal, that's where things like widespread poverty, political oppression, etc., come into play. Those factors, combined with US foreign policy, are why the so-called "Arab street" is pro-Bin Laden. It probably helps garner support for the real hardcore nutbags, but the hardcore nutbags themselves are people like OBL - and it's not poverty or lack of democracy which drives them.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Che, I beg to differ. Radical Islam has been around for more that 200 years. It is a movement that wants to restore the pure Islam of a mythic past. It has nothing to do with poverty. It has everything to do with a severe clash of culture, particularly with America. We not only are unbelievers, we are also libertines. OBL does not want his followers to become rich and decadent like we are, he wants us to become poor and pious as he is.

In a sense, this is a rebirth of the original Arab spirit to conquer and spread the faith. This is a war of faith, of ideals, of ways of life.

[chequita guevara]

You are correct, sir.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmmm... agreeing with che might be bad for my psyche, but I find myself doing it again .

With democracy maybe the wealth would be distributed to more people.

China is really poor because they don't have democracy right? And like che said, the US has one of the greatest weath disparties in the world, the distribution isn't done very well (and that is by design, btw).

But why is it that the West could go imperialist in the ME and not vice versa?

They did!! The Muslim empire streached from France to India at one point. And later on went to the wall of Vienna. Ask Greeks on this site if the Muslim Turks weren't imperialist.

The only problem was that the Islamic world was falling at the same time the European world was rising, and it was that time that industrialization was discovered.

Islamic culture didn't prevent it from being the richest empire in the world in the 1200s. All the places that Islam conquered in Europe at that time (Spain, Siciliy) were by far the richest areas in the continent. And North Africa made Europe look like child's play.

Radical Islam has been around for more that 200 years.

But it hasn't gained much sway except under colonialism and recently in the impoverished state of affairs of the ME. After independance, nationalist movements were in charge and Islamism was a minor portion.

[Felch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Imperialism and the political and economic structures that were set up by imperialism have far more to do with the poverty in their world.

Poverty is the natural state of existence. The Arabs were wealthy beyond the imagination of the West during the Middle Ages. Why did they falter to the Turks first, and then the West? Why didn't they keep up?

Because their culture is too rigid to allow them to produce wealth. They were impoverished before the Europeans started exploiting them. Quit blaming everybody's problems on your personal fued with liberalism, and come to your senses. Running a society in the third millenium, with a first millenium economic system is not going to make people any better off. Embracing the free market, and free trade will.

Hong Kong and Singapore were both colonies. Why aren't they suffering like the Arabs are?

[chequita guevara]

Read my responses to David Floyd and Gangerolf.

Hong Kong and Singapore succeeded where others failed because the British Empire funneled trade through them. They both became a major finance centers and used that wealth to expand manufacturing.

The ME does not have a 1st millenium economy. They have 21st century economies. The problem is their economies are that of neo-colonies in the 21st century rather than imperialist countries in 21st century or even simply developed nations in the 21st century.

You might also remember (rather than chosing to ignore) the fact that when those nations attempted to take steps to rearrange their economies more in their favor, the US immediately overthrew them or pressured them. The list of such countries is a very long one, and not merely limited to the ME. In fact, the US overthrew, invaded, or otherwise intervened in almost one country per year in the post-War period.

[Blisterz]

Re: Will it come down to us v.s. them?

Originally posted by Docfeelgood

What makes a person kill another human in the name of GOD?

God told them to do it...

[chequita guevara]

[Dr Strangelove]

May I point out that the guys who bombed the clubs in Bali surely knew that very few of the casualties were likely to be Americans? In fact, they also almost certainly knew that the vast majority would be Australians and New Zealanders. Neither of those nations played much of a role in the Gulf War.